Divisions persist in presidency

IF anyone thinks the divisions in the presidency are abating, he needs to look more closely at Aso Villa politics and do a little bit more reflection. Nigerians were unnerved last year when the Department of State Service (DSS) appeared to take sides with the National Assembly in undermining the appointment of Ibrahim Magu as the chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). For reasons best known to them, the senate did not, and still does not, want him. For tactical reasons, the DSS, citing purely professional, investigative and unbiased reasons, also said it was unable to support Mr Magu’s appointment. Since then, the presidency has seemed riven by divisions, with some of the lines even ill-defined. The divisions have also plunged the seat of power into a terrifying cold war that often breaks out in unsavoury remarks and deliberate and tactical leaks to the media.

Just when the country thought the divisions could not be worse than they already were, another front in the war broke out, this time more embarrassingly. At a programme recently organised in Abuja by the National Association of Seadogs, both Itse Sagay, a professor and chairman of the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC), and Femi Odekunle, another professor and member of PACAC, let loose incendiary views, particularly against other presidential appointees. The general tone of their views was that the said appointees were unserious about the government’s anti-corruption war, an accusation they took umbrage at, if not even thoroughly resent.

Perhaps the fieriest and most direct of the accusations came from Prof Odekunle who trained his guns on the Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami. Said the professor: “Is the Attorney-General of the Federation, who is to lead the anti-corruption fight, going by the way things have been going in the past two years, as committed as others who could have done the job better?” In one fiery statement, the professor not only cast doubt on the competence of the minister, he also doubted his loyalty and integrity. The cause of all the brouhaha was the setback the government suffered in prosecuting some accused persons charged with corruption. It in fact appeared that the immediate trigger was the acquittal of Senate President Bukola Saraki of charges of false asset declaration.

Mr Malami has of course responded with as much searing passion as he could manage. But what that cut and thrust indicates is that the divisions in the presidency are set to intensify, and the bad blood worsen. With new fronts opening on many sides, rapprochement, not to talk of healing, could become a chimera. Worse, it seems also clear that the divisions continue only because there is absence of leadership, an absence that, sadly, has little to do with the physical presence or absence of the president, but everything to do with the government’s lack of both ideological conviction and governing philosophy.